love

Author Topic: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons  (Read 75760 times)

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #270 on: November 07, 2016, 01:35:02 AM »
Well yeah, this was basically Silent Film 101, which was ideal for me. Will keep Seventh Heaven in mind, I've seen that it is held in very high regard in the yearly polls.

Meanwhile, on to Film Noir ! With a little Bunuel detour first to be up to date.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #271 on: November 10, 2016, 02:05:03 PM »
La mort en ce jardin / Death in the Garden (Luis Bunuel, 1956)



Adam & Josh's takes (starts at 1:08:28)

Well, after listening to that I'm a bit worried that Bunuel is simply not for me. Aside from his visual inventiveness, which there are some flashes of here (the ant-filled snake being the most notable one), he just doesn't connect with me.

This is the second film in a row which is ostensibly an adventure... but Bunuel seems so disinterested in depicting that in an exciting or entertaining way that I wonder why he bothers at all. I fail to see anything of value in the first half : theoretically I suppose the characters that are going to be stuck with each other in the jungle are being developed and set-up but Bunuel is as uninterested in characters as he is in traditional storytelling. Or maybe he's just bad at it, I don't know, but all of these "characters" aren't recognizably human, they're just there to symbolise different aspects of human society : the hypocritical priest, the heartless and greedy prostitute, the violent outlaw, the persecuted honest worker and his innocent mute daughter... that all sounds like an interesting group, but if you read that sentence you'd know as much about the characters as if you'd watched the film.

One key point that might explain why I reacted so differently to this than Adam & Josh is the acting. I think it's pretty uniformly terrible, especially Simone Signoret who's just doing a bad Arletty impression throughout. I'm probably "wrong", because those are relatively big names (Signoret and Piccoli). Maybe it's the awful dubbing, but I've enjoyed Italian films that had even worse dubbing than this, so I don't think so. Maybe it's the fact that this is presumably Mexico and everyone speaks French, but given the circumstances I don't ever mind that much, Bunuel is clearly not after any kind of realism here.

Then the film's value must be in its allegory, right ? I guess... it starts with a revolt against an authoritarian state, but beyond that it's so vague... Francoist Spain comes to mind because it's Bunuel, but it feels very surface-level. I can see the ways in which the story and characters have a connection to that, but I don't see anything actually interesting or thoughtful about it. It's just kinda there.

Part of me feels like those two movies are just cash-grabs, with their ostensibly action/adventure-y hooks, that Bunuel absent-mindedly filled with his usual themes without really exerting himself.

3/10
« Last Edit: November 10, 2016, 02:09:37 PM by Teproc »
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #272 on: November 11, 2016, 05:09:22 PM »
Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944)



Adam & Sam's takes (starts at 37:38)

This time, I'm on Sam's side (even though I know Sam himself isn't on this side anymore at this point). Double Indemnity should be a great movie, and for the most part it is. But there is a huge void at the center of it, a black hole of charisma named Fred MacMurray, who is in virtually every frame and, as our noir protagonist, also has to handle voice-over narration. It's not that he's horrible, he's just irremediably bland and stiff. His initial scenes with Stanwyck fell so flat, I was starting to wonder where the Stanwyck from The Lady Eve had gone, but it turns out she's still great : it's just hard to be that sexy when you're playing against a cardboard cutout, I guess.

It's a shame, really, because I can see why this film is so revered, and I would love to join the ranks and see it as a masterpiece. The story is classic noir, with a turn that -while predictable for the genre - is perfectly executed and carried by Stanwyck, who plays a more vulnerable version of the femme fatale than I expected. It's pretty thrilling at times (the scene with Stanwyck hiding behind the door for example), and the climax has a stunning beauty that I found somewhat missing from the rest of the film -emphasis on the "somewhat", I'm by no means arguing against the cinematography overall - perhaps my expectations got the better of me there.

The supporting cast is also not that great, aside from Edward G Robinson. That's a significant exception of course, as his character is particularly enjoyable to watch and one can only imagine that the relationship with Neff would have lead the ending to be even more effective had he been portrayed by a better actor, but oh well. Past Robinson though... not a fan of Jean Heather (Lola) in particular, or Byron Barr (Zacchetti) to a lesser extent.

All in all though, McMurray is the main reason this doesn't quite live up to its lofty reputation for me, but Stanwyck, Robinson and Wilder's assured direction make this a strong film nonetheless, just not quite a great one.

7/10
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 05:13:58 PM by Teproc »
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #273 on: November 11, 2016, 05:39:03 PM »
Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944)

This time, I'm on Sam's side (even though I know Sam himself isn't on this side anymore at this point). Double Indemnity should be a great movie, and for the most part it is. But there is a huge void at the center of it, a black hole of charisma named Fred MacMurray, who is in virtually every frame and, as our noir protagonist, also has to handle voice-over narration. It's not that he's horrible, he's just irremediably bland and stiff. His initial scenes with Stanwyck fell so flat, I was starting to wonder where the Stanwyck from The Lady Eve had gone, but it turns out she's still great : it's just hard to be that sexy when you're playing against a cardboard cutout, I guess.

7/10

:))

Your knock on Freddie Mac caught my eye. It's not that I count myself a fan really, I just happened to have seen him in some westerns from the 50's and thought he suited the parts. Somehow his stiff, blandness read as stoicism, and the hardened nerves of a ex-gunslinger. Could be that he was 15 years older and looking considerably more weathered.

I enjoyed reading your reaction though... it surprised me. I've not seen Double Indemnity, but of course I am aware of it being a highly regarded film. I didn't know there was a "black hole of charisma" at the center of it. :)) I wonder, is MacMurray's blandness a reaction you've encountered elsewhere in regards to the film? What is he, like a poor man's Bogie?

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #274 on: November 11, 2016, 07:46:46 PM »
I wonder, is MacMurray's blandness a reaction you've encountered elsewhere in regards to the film? What is he, like a poor man's Bogie?

George Raft is the poor man's Bogie. MacMurray is an age appropriate character delivery device. I like him just fine, but I never think he's the best choice for any part. At his best, a director will cast him to be a guy's guy who believes he has it all figured out only to learn by the end of the film that he's a sucker or a fool. It's like Will Ferrell played straight.

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #275 on: November 11, 2016, 08:14:15 PM »
MacMurray is also what kept me distant from the film.  I thought it was because I'd only seen him in his later comedic roles and it was hard to imagine him being this nihilistic.  Now you make me wonder if the weakness is in the performance.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #276 on: November 12, 2016, 01:28:32 AM »
:))

Your knock on Freddie Mac caught my eye. It's not that I count myself a fan really, I just happened to have seen him in some westerns from the 50's and thought he suited the parts. Somehow his stiff, blandness read as stoicism, and the hardened nerves of a ex-gunslinger. Could be that he was 15 years older and looking considerably more weathered.

I enjoyed reading your reaction though... it surprised me. I've not seen Double Indemnity, but of course I am aware of it being a highly regarded film. I didn't know there was a "black hole of charisma" at the center of it. :)) I wonder, is MacMurray's blandness a reaction you've encountered elsewhere in regards to the film? What is he, like a poor man's Bogie?

Well, Sam agreed with me in 2007, for one. From what I've seen in reviews, people must not mind his performance as much as I did, but he's rarely called out as being particularly good either, with the focus generally being on Stanwyck and Robinson, rightly so. I think part of my reaction is also tied with expectations, a bit : I know I should love this and I can see what gives the film its reputation, so I'm perhaps more critical of McMurray than I would be in a lesser film. But also, this is a film that asks a lot of its lead character, and McMurray not being up to it hurts it all the more for that reason.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #277 on: November 12, 2016, 02:59:27 AM »
Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944)

7/10

I could not relate to Junior and Martin's love of this movie, in part because of that central performance. If your main character is in every scene of the movie, he should not be the distant third best performer in it. I also have a couple of problems with the script and plot, which stem from pacing and character development, but I suspect solving that acting issue might have allowed me to overlook them.

MacMurray is an age appropriate character delivery device.

« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #278 on: November 12, 2016, 03:13:07 AM »
Poor Laura Linney. She deserves better.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: A Filmspotter's Marathon of Filmspotting Marathons
« Reply #279 on: November 13, 2016, 12:53:52 AM »
Oh course we're all in agreement Double Jeopardy is the better film, right?

Guys?


 

love